This article needs additional citations for. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (January 2017) () The pronoun you is the, both and, and both and in. The oblique (objective) form, you, functioned previously in the roles of both and, as well as all instances following a preposition. The possessive forms of you are your (used before a noun) and yours (used in place of a noun). The reflexive forms are yourself (singular) and yourselves (plural). Person (gender) Singular First me my mine myself Second your yours yourself Third Masculine him his himself Feminine her hers herself Neuter its itself them their theirs themselves Plural First us our ours ourselves Second your yours yourselves Third them their theirs themselves. Contents • • • • • • Usage [ ] Look up,,, or in Wiktionary, the free dictionary. In standard, you is both singular and plural; it always takes a form that originally marked the word as plural, (i.e. You are, in common with we are and they are). This was not always so. Early Modern English distinguished between the plural and the singular. As in many other European languages, English at the time had a, which made the plural forms more respectful and deferential; they were used to address strangers and social superiors. This distinction ultimately led to familiar thou becoming obsolete in modern English, although it. 16 hours ago - 101 min-A FREE|ᴏɴʟɪɴᴇ FULL ONLINE MOVIE ⚜☽ YOU WERE NEVER REALLY HERE FULL ONLINE MOVIE. Jun 16, 2017 Share This Story! Let friends in your social network know what you are reading about. Because thou is now seen primarily in sources such as the (often directed to, who is traditionally addressed in the familiar) or (often in dialogues, e.g. 'Wherefore art thou?' ), it is now widely perceived as more formal, rather than familiar. Although the other forms for the plural second-person pronoun are now used for the singular second-person pronoun in modern English, the plural reflexive form 'yourselves' is not used for the singular; instead 'yourself' is used for the singular second-person reflexive pronoun. Informal plural forms [ ] Although there is some dialectal retention of the original plural ye and the original singular thou, most English-speaking groups have lost the original forms. Because of the loss of the original singular-plural distinction, many English dialects belonging to this group have innovated new plural forms of the second person pronoun. Examples of such pronouns sometimes seen and heard include: •, or you all –,, the, and. Y'all however, is also occasionally used for the second person singular in the North American varieties. • you guys [ju gajz~juɣajz] – U.S., particularly in the Midwest, Northeast, South Florida and West Coast; Canada, Australia. For more details on this topic, see. You is usually a second person pronoun. It is also used to refer to an indeterminate person, as a more common alternative to the very formal one. Example: ' One cannot learn English in a day' or ' You cannot learn English in a day'. Etymology [ ] You is derived from ge or ȝe (both pronounced roughly like yea), which was the old nominative case form of the pronoun, and eow, which was the old form of the pronoun. In the nominative case became ye, and the (formed by the merger of the accusative case and the former ) was you. In early Modern English either the nominative or the accusative form had been generalized in most. Most generalized you; some dialects in the north of and generalized ye, or use ye as a clipped or form of the pronoun. The specific form of this pronoun can be derived from *yū(H)s (2nd plural nominative). It is most widespread in the, but has cognates in other branches of such as yūyám, yūš, humeis, yas/yes, dzez/dzez/cez, ioūs, jūs, jūs, juve, ju. In other Indo-European languages the form derived from *wō̆s (second person plural oblique) began to prevail: vōs, wy, вы [vy]. In the early days of the, the letter was used in place of the ( þ), so many modern instances of 'ye' (such as in 'Ye Olde Shoppe') are in fact examples of ' () and not of 'you'. This use of letters in printing may have indirectly helped contribute to the displacement of thou by you, and the use of you in the nominative case. See also [ ] • • • • • References [ ]. • Rios, Delia M (2004-06-01)... Retrieved 2007-03-30. • ^ Schreier, Daniel; Trudgill, Peter; Schneider, Edgar W.; Williams, Jeffrey P., eds. The Lesser-Known Varieties of English: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.. • Jochnowitz, George (1984). 'Another View of You Guys'. American Speech. 58 (1): 68–70... • Finegan, Edward (2011). Language: Its Structure and Use. Wadsworth Publishing Co Inc p. • ^ Williams, Jeffrey P.; Schneider, Edgar W.; Trudgill, Peter; Schreier, Daniel, eds. Further Studies in the Lesser-Known Varieties of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.. • ^ Allsopp, Richard (2003) [1996]. Dictionary of Caribbean English Usage. Kingston: The University of the West Indies Press.. A Dictionary of Hiberno-English. Gill & Macmillan. • Wales, Katie (1996). Personal Pronouns in Present-Day English. Cambridge University Press. • Kortmann, Bernd; Upton, Clive (2008). Varieties of English: The British Isles. Mouton de Gruyter. • Taavitsainen, Irma; Jucker, Andreas H. Diachronic Perspectives on Address Term Systems. John Benjamins Publishing Company. • Butler, Susan.. Retrieved 2016-02-02. • Rehder, John B. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press... • Howe, Stephen (1996). The Personal Pronouns in the Germanic Languages: A Study of Personal Morphology and Change in the Germanic Languages from the First Records to the Present Day. Walter de Gruyter & Co. • Graddol, David et al. English History, Diversity and Change. Garner's Modern English Usage. Oxford University Press. THE PERFECT GIRLS NIGHT OUT HUNKS the Show is the world’s foremost exotic male dance show on tour. The production is an electrifying, high-energy performance showcasing some of the sexiest men alive as they sing, dance, and strip in choreographed routines to thumping beats and dazzling light shows. Millions of women around the world have experienced the heat and thrill of the HUNKS, and now it’s your turn. Come and see one of the best all male dance shows in the world, and find out what all the fuss is about. Where Can I See the HUNKS? Unlike regular male revue shows, the HUNKS are, and can be seen at hotels, clubs, theaters, and other venues across the country. But if you have an upcoming show in a city near you, jump on tickets now, because they sell out, and they sell out fast. Ladies can’t wait to get their hands on these HUNKS, and you’ve got to be quick if you want your shot at these dancing hard-bodies. Any Time Is a Good Time for Exotic Male Dancers Ladies all over the world have seen (and felt) the HUNKS perform. This all-star male dance revue is a great way to celebrate ladies’ night, a, a, or a, and it’s a great way to treat yourselves to a well-deserved night of sensual pleasure and sexiness. If you like men in uniforms, cowboys, firemen, and guys who can move, then HUNKS is the show for you. It’s always the right time for hard abs, cute faces, sexy moves, and stripping dudes. And we’re always near you! Hot Guys and Hot Seats One of the reasons HUNKS is the best male show around is because of the interactive nature of our dancers. That’s right—not only can you see and feel the heat of these guys on stage, but you might also even get a chance to dance with them and touch them. The on-stage seats put you front and center for the best view in the house, and the hot seat, in particular, makes sure the attention is on you. HUNKS the Show isn’t just about guys taking off their clothes, but it certainly is one of the perks! These men can sing, dance, and serenade, and they definitely know how to put on a show. This male revue might be coming to a city near you sometime soon, and there’s no better way to surprise your girlfriends than with tickets to see the show. Make your next birthday, bachelorette, or girls’ night extra special, and come on out and see exactly what these HUNKS can do. I had such an unbelievably great time, all the men were sexy, every time we would walk into the crowd a “hunk” would tell us we were beautiful and if we were lucky we’d get a li toe tap on the butt �, got super sexy dances for only a dollar, but i definitely gave more after they started. The MC was my dude! So I naturally had to pay the 20 dollars to get an onstage dance, which is sooo cheap compared to other (female) strip clubs that I’ve been too. And if you were the mc at Battle Creek last me HMU � read more. This was honestly one of the most wildest nights of my life. Hunks The Show is fabulous in every sense of the word. The men were personable and showed love to everyone attending. The show was intimate and made the experience even that much better. There were multiple options of packages to chose from to get on stage with the guys and get some special treatment. #SLAY was hands down amazing. His ability to give women the ultimate “magic mike” experience just goes to show how truly talented he is. Ladies y’all need to see these men perform, and do not hesitate to get those packages to get on stage. It’ll be worth your time, I promise! Thank you boys for a great time! Shout out to Slay and Armando! ���� read more. My two friends and I went to their show for the first time last night. We drove 2 and 1/2 hours to see them at my cousins bar in Il. It was a blast! We were pretty close to say the least and very much enjoyed the show. Amber sent a couple our way towards the end not that we were complaining, we were kind of hiding lol. It was fun to watch but I am glad she broke through our nerves I suppose haha. I got tossed around a couple times and both guys that did the lifting before even touching me told me in a round about way to let them know if I was uncomfortable at any point to let them know. I appreciated that to be completely honest. All of the guys were super nice and did a great job amping the ladies up through out the whole show. Thanks so much for all that awsomness last night. I will for sure go to another. These guys work very hard for their money. And i believe are absolutely the best damn show i have been to. The performers that come my way go out of their way to make sure every lady gets their mi ey worth. I have never ever left a show disappointed and dobt think i ever will. I have gotten numerous of pics with the guys and signed shirts. So to all that want to complain about hunks the show. My best advice is suck it up buttercups and no go anymore. Lane, austin, Armando, luis, u r the freakin best and will continue coming to ur shows when u come to the east coast close to me. Keep up the great work guys. Me and my ladies love what u do!!!!!!! Went to a show a few years back and upgraded to VIP best decision ever! Drinks, sexy men and a great time. My friend and I had a blast, the guys were super fun, nice and paid attention to everyone there. Would definitely like to see these guys again soon! Also I see lots of negative reviews here about others not being treated like the 'thin girls' hell I'm a curvy lady and I was picked up and treated just like the other ladies. These guys didn't discriminate lol! I thought it was just like magic mike in real life �� read more. Went to this show last night to celebrate getting married. Of course I have never before been to a show of this nature. We had a great time! I loved that all the men worked the ENTIRE crowd and didn't discriminate based on age, shape, or color. At first I did get upset because I witnessed one of the men get very stern almost angry with a customer. But then I took a step back and realized he had every right. Yes they are all VERY attractive men. However they are people too. Be considerate of them while they entertain you. I could hear people complaining about dance moves. But the amount of effort and physical endurance it takes to do this show is extreme. Im sorry if someone forgets a dance move in the middle of some girl trying to forcibly grab his junk. I enjoyed the show and would definitely consider seeing another one in the future. It takes a lot of work to have a profession such as this one. Happy to see y'all stick around after the show and take photos with the girls, as well as dance, ride the mechanical bull etc.
0 Comments
Films like Sixteen Candles personify what the eighties was all about. And if you were a child of the 80s, you will probably identify with this film a lot more than the now younger generation. The story is simple enough, but it works so well. Molly Ringwald is particularly likeable in this, and she is almost irreplaceable in her part. There are heaps of familiar faces, including small parts from many of the present day 'movie stars' ie John Cusack, Joan Cusack and Jami Gertz. It's kind of daggy though, and when you tell people you watched it their response is usually 'Oh My God. That is so OLD.' But that's what I like about it. If you want to watch a film that reflects the eighties, forget the nostalgia trips of The Wedding Singer and Romy and Michelle. Hire a true eighties product, such as Pretty in Pink, Sixteen Candles, The Breakfast Club, St Elmo's Fire. The list goes on and on. • Get our Emails Never miss another great coupon. Save more than before with savings alerts and new offers delivered right to your inbox. • Coupons.com Mobile App Save effortlessly with paperless coupons! Link your store loyalty cards, add coupons, then shop and save. • Coupon Codes Shop online with coupon codes from top retailers. Get Sears coupons, Best Buy coupons, and enjoy great savings with a Nordstrom promo code. • About Us Find out more about how Coupons.com helps brands and retailers engage consumers with our portfolio of digital, social & mobile solutions. National Candle Association and published on several social media platforms, this effort is authored and managed by leading home fragrance industry experts. Their objectives seek to educate and inspire around decorating, gift giving and crafting with candles. Light A Candle Tonight! Home Fragrance Scents 2017. 14 verified Yankee Candle coupons and promo codes as of Dec 6. Popular now: 50% Off Black Friday Discount. Trust Coupons.com for Gifts & Collectibles savings. To be eligible for a list, a player must have rookie eligibility. To qualify for rookie status, a player must not have exceeded 130 at-bats or 50 innings pitched in the Major Leagues, or accumulated more than 45 days on the active roster of a Major League club or clubs during the 25-player limit period, excluding time on the disabled list or in military service. Eligibility guidelines are further determined by the Collective Bargaining Agreement, in terms of who falls under the international pool money rules: Players who are at least 25 years old and played in leagues deemed to be professional (Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Cuba) are not eligible. Prospect Development Pipeline player profiles are generated by MLB Pipeline with the assistance of the MLB Scouting Bureau. The information herein is not associated with USA Baseball or Team USA. Players are graded on a 20-80 scale for future tools -- 20-30 is well below average, 40 is below average, 50 is average, 60 is above average and 70-80 is well above average. ©2017 MLBAM, LP. All rights reserved. The following are trademarks or service marks of Major League Baseball entities and may be used only with permission of Major League Baseball Properties, Inc. Or the relevant Major League Baseball entity: Major League, Major League Baseball, MLB, the silhouetted batter logo, World Series, National League, American League, Division Series, League Championship Series, All-Star Game, and the names, nicknames, logos, uniform designs, color combinations, and slogans designating the Major League Baseball clubs and entities, and their respective mascots, events and exhibitions. Use of the Website signifies your agreement to the and. View MLB.com in English|. Ready to go off-roading in a 2017 Ram 2500 truck? The automaker has two new models: The Power Wagon and 4x4 Off-road Package -- see Ram photos here! Welcome to Our Community Welcome to the Sherdog Forums, an online MMA community where you can join over 60,000 MMA fans and fighters discussing all things related to MMA. To gain full access to Sherdog Forums, you must register for a FREE account. As a registered member, you will be able to: • Participate in over 20 MMA topic forums and browse over 4 million posts. • Communicate privately with other MMA fans around the world. • Post your own photos and view the thousands of member-posted photos. • Participate in the newsletter giveaways. All this and more is available to you absolutely FREE when you register for an account, sign up today! The Wizard of Lies Trailer - 2017 Robert De Niro HBO Movie Subscribe for more: About the Wizard of Lies Movie Trailer In 2008, stockbroker, investment advisor and financier Bernie Madoff made headlines around the world when he was arrested for perpetrating perhaps the largest financial fraud in U.S. Debuting in May, HBO Films’ THE WIZARD OF LIES examines Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme – his deception, lies and cover-up, all as the financier’s wife and sons are catapulted into a harsh and unrelenting spotlight. Robert De Niro (Oscar® winner for “Raging Bull” and “The Godfather II”) comes to HBO for the first time in the role of family patriarch Bernie Madoff. Also on HBO for the first time, Michelle Pfeiffer (Golden Globe winner for “The Fabulous Baker Boys”) stars as Ruth Madoff, Bernie’s longtime spouse and unwitting partner during the events that would lead to financial ruin for countless people and institutions, as well as his and his family’s destruction. The film is directed by Barry Levinson from a script by Sam Levinson and John Burnham Schwartz and Samuel Baum. Robert De Niro and Michelle Pfeiffer star in 'Wizard of Lies,' the HBO movie about Bernie Madoff. May 18, 2017 AT 04:27 PM EDT. The Wizard of Lies. Type: TV Show; genre: Drama; run date: 05/20/17; performer: Robert De Niro, Michelle Pfeiffer, Hank Azaria; director: Barry Levinson; broadcaster: HBO; Current Status: In. The Wizard of Lies - In 2008, stockbroker, investment adviser and financier Bernie Madoff made headlines around the world when he was arrested for perpetrating. May 24, 2017. May 24, 2017. Robert De Niro has been in some bad comedies in recent decades, but there's no altering the fact that he is one of Hollywood's great treasures. Now he's back, in HBO's The Wizard of Lies, doing what he does best: playing a gangster who is difficult to get a moral read on. White-collar the. Youtube.com MOANA Bonus Clip - Gone Fishing ( 2017) - YouTube 3840 × 2160 - 647k - jpg youtube.com Moana Deleted Scene - Gone Fishing ( 2017) - Auli'i Cravalho Movie. 1280 × 720 - 149k - jpg youtube.com Disney's MOANA - ' Gone Fishing' - Blu Ray Bonus Clip! 1280 × 720 - 109k - jpg nba.com Gone Fishin' in the 2017 NBA Playoffs| NBA.com 1280 × 720 - 140k - jpg nba.com Gone Fishin' in the 2017 NBA Playoffs| NBA.com 1280 × 720 - 122k - jpg youtube.com Disneys MOANA - Gone Fishing - Blu Ray Bonus Clip! Fly fishing adventures in the Carolinas and beyond. Mar 5, 2017 - 10 min - Uploaded by Mary J. EdenDisney's MOANA - 'Gone Fishing' - Blu Ray Bonus Clip! (Animation, 2017) - Duration: 4. Aug 22, 2017 A film by Peter Christensen and Rolf Nylinder. The Ozernaya River winds serpentine-like through a remote corner of Kamchatka in Far. Gone Fishing is an animated short featuring the characters of Disney's 2016 animated film Moana. It premiered on February 21, 2017 with the release of the Digital copy of Moana. 1280 × 720 - 171k - jpg silverscreenandroll.com TNT says goodbye to the Lakers' season in hilarious Gone Fishin. 1200 × 800 - 146k - jpg redcarpetrefs.com MOANA “ Gone Fishing” Deleted Scene (Video) – Red Carpet Refs 1269 × 532 - 1177k - png imdb.com Gone Fishing (Video 2017) - IMDb 630 × 1200 - 227k - jpg youtube.com Moana Bonus Clip Gone Fishing Disney Moana and Maui Funny video. 1280 × 720 - 176k - jpg nba.com Gone Fishin' in the 2017 NBA Playoffs| NBA.com 1280 × 720 - 168k - jpg youtube.com MOANA ' Gone Fishing' Movie Clip ( 2017) Disney, Family Movie HD. 1280 × 720 - 114k - jpg youtube.com MOANA - ' Gone Fishing' Deleted Movie Clip (2016) Dwayne Johnson. 1280 × 720 - 131k - jpg oregonlive.com Portland Trail Blazers get the ' gone fishin' treatment from. 1717 × 1389 - 915k - jpg youtube.com Inside The Nba Gone Fishin': Clippers, Grizzlies, Bulls, Wizards. 1280 × 720 - 118k - jpg nba.com Gone Fishin' in the 2017 NBA Playoffs| NBA.com 1280 × 720 - 129k - jpg youtube.com EXCLUSIVE MOANA CLIP Gone fishing Blu Ray TRAILER 2017 - YouTube 1280 × 720 - 113k - jpg moana.wikia.com Video - Moana Gone Fishing Bonus Clip| Moana Wikia| FANDOM. 480 × 269 - 28k forums.somethingawful.com NBA Gone Fishin' 2017 - Hennigan Didn't Make the Boat - The. 1280 × 720 - 131k - jpg amazon.com Gone Fishing by Gary Patterson 2017 Wall Calendar: Gary Patterson. 260 × 260 - 32k - jpg. Moana Bonus Clip 'Gone Fishing' from the Blu-ray/DVD. Subscribe for more! Until now, Robert Mueller has haunted Donald Trump’s White House as a hovering, mostly unseen menace. But by of Paul Manafort and Rick Gates, and a surprise from foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos, Mueller announced loudly that the Russia investigation poses an existential threat to the president. “Here’s what Manafort’s indictment tells me: Mueller is going to go over every financial dealing of and the Trump Organization,” said former Trump campaign aide Sam Nunberg. “Trump is at 33 percent in Gallup. You can’t go any lower. He’s fucked.” The first charges in the Mueller probe have kindled talk of what the endgame for Trump looks like, according to conversations with a half-dozen advisers and friends of the president. For the first time since the investigation began, the prospect of impeachment is being considered as a realistic outcome and not just a liberal fever dream. According to a source, advisers in the West Wing are and doing whatever they can not to be ensnared. One person close to Dina Powell and said they’re making sure to leave rooms if the subject of Russia comes up. The consensus among the advisers I spoke to is that Trump faces few good options to thwart Mueller. For one, firing Mueller would cross a red line, analogous to Nixon’s firing of Archibald Cox during Watergate, pushing establishment Republicans to entertain the possibility of impeachment. “His options are limited, and his instinct is to come out swinging, which won’t help things,” said a prominent Republican close to the White House. Trump, meanwhile, has reacted to the deteriorating situation by lashing out on Twitter and venting in private to friends. He’s frustrated that the investigation seems to have no end in sight. “Trump wants to be critical of Mueller,” one person who’s been briefed on Trump’s thinking says. “He thinks it’s unfair criticism. Clinton hasn’t gotten anything like this. And what about Tony Podesta? Trump is like, When is that going to end?” According to two sources, Trump has complained to advisers about his legal team for letting the Mueller probe progress this far. Speaking to on Tuesday, Trump blamed Jared Kushner for his role in decisions, specifically the firings of Mike Flynn and James Comey, that led to Mueller’s appointment, according to a source briefed on the call. When Roger Stone recently told Trump that Kushner was giving him bad political advice, Trump agreed, according to someone familiar with the conversation. “Jared is the worst political adviser in the White House in modern history,” Nunberg said. “I’m only saying publicly what everyone says behind the scenes at Fox News, in conservative media, and the Senate and Congress.” (The White House didn’t respond to a request for comment by deadline.). As Mueller moves to West Wing aides in the coming days, advisers are lobbying for Trump to consider a range of stratagems to neutralize Mueller, from conciliation to a declaration of all-out war. One Republican explained Trump’s best chance for survival is to get his poll numbers up. Trump’s lawyer Ty Cobb has been advocating the view that playing ball will lead to a quick resolution (Cobb did not respond to a request for comment). How Heather Fink Made Her First Feature Film 'Inside You'. By Sydney Parker July 10, 2017. Heather-fink After years of performing standup comedy and making funny videos, Heather Fink struck out on her own as a writer/director. Paying the bills by day as a boom operator and sound utility, Fink got to work dreaming up her. 16 Tháng Tám 2016. Movie 'Inside You' was released in August 25, 2017 in genre Comedy. Heather Fink was directed this movie. This movie tell story about Stephanie and Ryan switch bodies after a magic night together. Watch and Download Full Movie Inside You (2017). Do not miss to Watch movie Inside You (2017) Online. Dates: June 24, 2017 - June 16, 2019; Times: Open during Museum hours; Location: Akeley Gallery, on the Museum's second floor. Tickets: Free with Museum admission and for Members. Not a Member? Three human-shaped icons in front of a background image of a city, with. But these soft-power approaches are being criticized by Trump allies including Steve Bannon and Roger Stone, who both believe establishment Republicans are waiting for a chance to impeach Trump. “The establishment has proven time and time again they will fuck Trump over,” a Bannon ally told me. In a series of phone calls with Trump on Monday and Tuesday, Bannon told the president to shake up the legal team by installing an aggressive lawyer above Cobb, according to two sources briefed on the call. Bannon has also discussed ways to pressure Congress to defund Mueller’s investigation or limit its scope. “Mueller shouldn’t be allowed to be a clean shot on goal,” a Bannon confidant told me. “He must be contested and checked. Right now he has unchecked power.” Bannon’s is being fueled by his belief that Trump’s hold on power is slipping. The collapse of Obamacare repeal, and the dimming chances that tax reform will pass soon—many Trump allies are deeply pessimistic about its prospects—have created the political climate for establishment Republicans to turn on Trump. Two weeks ago, according to a source, Bannon did a spitball analysis of the Cabinet to see which members would remain loyal to Trump in the event the 25th Amendment were invoked, thereby triggering a vote to remove the president from office. Bannon recently told people he’s not sure if Trump would survive such a vote. “One thing Steve wants Trump to do is take this more seriously,” the Bannon confidant told me. “Stop joking around. Stop tweeting.” Roger Stone believes defunding Mueller isn’t enough. Instead, Stone wants Trump to call for a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary Clinton’s role in approving the Uranium One deal that’s been a locus of rightwing hysteria (the transaction involved a Russian state-owned energy firm acquiring a Canadian mining company that controlled a of the uranium in the United States). It’s a, but as Stone described it, a special prosecutor looking into Uranium One would also have to investigate the F.B.I.’s role in approving the deal, thereby making Mueller—who was in charge of the bureau at the time—a target. Stone’s choice for a special prosecutor: Rudy Giuliani law colleague Marc Mukasey or Fox News pundit Andrew Napolitano. “You would immediately have to inform Mueller, Comey, and [Deputy Attorney General] Rod Rosenstein that they are under federal investigation,” Stone said. “Trump can’t afford to fire Mueller politically. But this pushes him aside.”. And what would a tax-reform speech be without a rant about the war on Christmas? “You don't see ‘Merry Christmas’ anymore... You go to the department stores and you see ‘Happy New Year’ and you see red and you see snow. You don't see ‘Merry Christmas’ anymore,” the president concluded, perhaps inspired by the backdrop. “With Trump as your president, we are going to be celebrating ‘Merry Christmas’ again, and it’s going to be done with a big, beautiful tax cut. Thank you, everybody. God bless you.” n If you would like to receive the Levin Report in your inbox daily, to subscribe. N One more time for the cheap seats n Despite the fact that Trump and the G.O.P.’s entire tax plan rests on the idea that cutting the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 20 percent will cause massive economic growth with the savings going toward boosting wages and creating jobs, corporate America. N n The president has held fast to his pledge even as top executives’ comments have run counter to it for months. Instead of hiring more workers or raising their pay, many companies say they’ll first increase dividends or buy back their own shares. N n n Robert Bradway, chief executive of Amgen Inc., said in an Oct. 25 earnings call that the company has been “actively returning capital in the form of growing dividend and buyback and I’d expect us to continue that.” Executives including Coca-Cola C.E.O. James Quincey, Pfizer Chief Financial Officer Frank D’Amelio, and Cisco C.F.O. Kelly Kramer have recently made similar statements.... N n n Trump has insisted that the Republican tax plan cut the U.S. Corporate rate to 20 percent from 35 percent. Another provision would impose an even lower tax rate on companies’ stockpiled overseas earnings, giving them an incentive to return trillions of dollars in offshore cash to the U.S. That money is also unlikely to spur hiring because companies are already well-capitalized and can bring on as many employees as they need, said John Shin, a foreign-exchange strategist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch. N n n “Companies are sitting on large amounts of cash. They’re not really financially constrained,” Shin, who conducted a survey of more than 300 companies asking their plans for a tax overhaul, said in an interview. “They’re still working for their shareholders, primarily.” n n But hey, that’s just the view from out here in reality. How is it looking in the alternative universe that is the White House? N “The administration has been working with business leaders and job creators from the beginning of the tax reform process,” White House spokeswoman Lindsay Walters told Bloomberg. What stands out about the Pentagon deal—aside from the waste of taxpayer money for an apartment in a building that Trump has visited only once since it was rented—is that anyone (in their right mind or otherwise) has been willing to pay that much for an apartment in Donald Trump’s tower. The Pentagon’s rent bill is about three times the next-highest rent in Trump Tower—$50,000 a month in 2016 for a slightly larger unfurnished apartment—at a time when both sales and rentals in the building have slumped. Since Trump’s November electoral win, at least 14 apartments have been put up for sale. Those came to market along with apartments that were for sale before the election. By this fall, there were 19 unsold apartments, some of which had been languishing for months—their prices dropping steadily by as much as 15 percent. Others have been pulled from the market. The same has been true for rentals—14 apartments were on the market shortly after the election, only 5 of which have been rented. The others were taken off the market. At one point 10 percent of the building’s 231 units were for sale or for rent. N To a certain extent, this reflects softness in the market for luxury apartments in New York. With the recent epidemic in construction of super-luxe skyscrapers—One57, 432 Park Avenue, Central Park Tower, among them—the market for the very rich has shifted in favor of buyers. Jesse Lenz One evening in July, David Smith, the executive chairman of Sinclair Broadcast Group, strolled into the newsroom at WJLA, the ABC affiliate for Washington, DC, and the crown jewel of his company’s 193-station empire. Smith lacks the name recognition of Rupert Murdoch or the late Roger Ailes. But his company—with holdings like Tulsa, Flint, and Boise—owns more television stations than any other broadcaster in the country, reaching 2 out of every 5 American homes. Station staffers thought it odd to see Smith, one of four brothers who control Sinclair, aimlessly show up at this evening hour. According to a source familiar with the newsroom, he assured them that he wouldn’t be staying long; he was just killing time until a dinner appointment. Before he left, he confided that he was headed to the White House, to dine with President Donald Trump himself. At 67, Smith has thick jowls and a head full of silver hair with wide-set eyes shaped like crescents. A longtime Republican donor who travels in rarefied circles (he once hosted a party for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas), Smith lives outside Baltimore in Maryland’s horse country, where his company is headquartered. Over the past 30 years, Smith and his brothers have transformed a small family company with three TV stations into a media goliath with entrée to the Oval Office. Along the way he has shown no qualms about using his stations for political purposes and has salivated at the prospect of acquiring more under Trump’s friendly regulatory regime. In April, Sinclair Boris Epshteyn, a former Trump White House staffer and frequent television surrogate, as its chief political analyst. EMAIL ADDRESS We may share your message with our reporters. By providing your email address, you agree to let us contact you regarding your feedback. We respect your privacy and will not use your email address for any other purpose. Photo credits: CBS/Getty (3); Joshua Roberts/Reuters; Jim Watson/AFP/Getty; Carlo Allegri/Reuters; Pool/Getty; Paul J. Richards/AFP/Getty; Olivier Douliery/DPA/Zuma; Jeff Vinnick/Getty; Jaap Arriens/Nurphoto/Getty Journalism That Challenges Conventional Wisdom It's what you expect from MoJo, and this past year has made clear that the dangers for independent, critical reporting are at a record level because of a perfect storm of economic and political assaults. That's why we're setting a stretch goal to raise $350,000 from readers like you by December 31. Please join us with a tax-deductible donation—or for the survival of investigative journalism. Unbearably tense and anti-aesthetic. For his second directorial feature, Tobias Lindholm (co-writer of Jagten) delivers the kind of indifferent, matter-of-fact realism not experienced since the early days of Dogme 95. And because it cuts through all the fluff and artifice that has invaded commercial films without compromising momentum as a situationist thriller, one must concede that Kapringen has upped the ante on Danish rebellion against the Hollywood system. The refusal to include actual scenes of the hijacking in a film specifically titled 'A Hijacking' is no accident. A cargo ship MV Rozen is hijacked by Somali pirates in the Indian Ocean. Among the eight men crew taken hostage is Mikkel (Pilou Asbæk), the ship's cook. A translator for the pirates issues demand for $15M in exchange for release. Jun 10, 2017 - 90 min - Uploaded by Movie List#1131Únos (2017) ᐈ????'?????”. 123m????'English'HD [▻????◅] - Duration: 1:26:57. IB Moviemorran 14 views 1:26:57 Ťažký týždeň s Janom. Financial analysis of Únos (2017) including budget, domestic and international box office gross, DVD and Blu-ray sales reports, total earnings and profitability. Jan 22, 2017 kali - pravda je len jedna / soundtrack k filmu Únos / hudba: peter pann. Watch Únos (2017) Online Free Full Movie Putlocker - Putlocker Movies Free. In the 90s, when Czechoslovakia split up to Czcech Republik and Slo. Zotero is a powerful, easy-to-use research tool that helps you gather, organize, and analyze sources and then share the results of your research. But back in Copenhagen, CEO of the shipping company Peter (Søren Malling) learns that gaining the upper hand demands patience. And so negotiations play out in silence like a sociopathic Fischer-Spassky game: cold, calculated, unyielding. I can't think of any movie in which I have wanted so much to resist and cease watching, yet fail to do so because it has a quality so raw, unsympathetic and intuitive. In keeping with Lindholm's debut feature (a prison drama 'R'); Kapringen is filmed on location, in chronological sequence and on board a sea freighter that was hijacked in the Indian ocean. Casting also features a real life hostage negotiator as the central figure and naturally, Somali pirates. Arguably, mechanical reproduction of genuine conditions doesn't guarantee a convincing film but in this case, it does Kapringen looks so suitably stained with normality that one instantly recognizes the absence of gimmicky aesthetics. Unmanipulated (or to be PC about words, 'seemingly so'), you resonate with the film's fabric of reality while searching for something more, and in the process, gain access into psychological domains that underpin both Peter and Mikkel. It's not for nothing that Lindholm went through great lengths to replicate an uncomfortable, pressing scenario because the film offers reflection on an overlooked form of terrorism. Corporations may be showing it to employees as a resource on how to respond during such crises, but Kapringen's master stroke is the revelation of an impasse between the moral versus the practical. There is no payoff at the end of this film, it is one the most sophisticated vérités I have seen, the meta-argument leaves you deliberating, and the film takes off like a thinker on paradox. An article by Adam Grant called is going viral, thanks in part to a share by Facebook exec Sheryl Sandberg. It’s a response to an email by a Google employee saying that he thought Google’s low female representation wasn’t a result of sexism, but a result of men and women having different interests long before either gender thinks about joining Google. Grant says that gender differences are small and irrelevant to the current issue. Grant writes: It’s always precarious to make claims about how one half of the population differs from the other half—especially on something as complicated as technical skills and interests. But I think it’s a travesty when discussions about data devolve into name-calling and threats. As a social scientist, I prefer to look at the evidence. The gold standard is a meta-analysis: a study of studies, correcting for biases in particular samples and measures. Here’s what meta-analyses tell us about gender differences: When it comes to abilities, attitudes, and actions, sex differences are few and small. Across 128 domains of the mind and behavior, “78% of gender differences are small or close to zero.” A recent addition to that list is leadership, where men feel more confident but women are rated as more competent. There are only a handful of areas with large sex differences: men are physically stronger and more physically aggressive, masturbate more, and are more positive on casual sex. So you can make a case for having more men than women if you’re fielding a sports team or collecting semen. The meta-analysis Grant cites is Hyde’s,. I’ve looked into it before, and I don’t think it shows what he wants it to show. Suppose I wanted to convince you that men and women had physically identical bodies. I run studies on things like number of arms, number of kidneys, size of the pancreas, caliber of the aorta, whether the brain is in the head or the chest, et cetera. 90% of these come back identical – in fact, the only ones that don’t are a few outliers like “breast size” or “number of penises”. I conclude that men and women are mostly physically similar. I can even make a statistic like “men and women are physically the same in 78% of traits”. Then I go back to the person who says women have larger breasts and men are more likely to have penises, and I say “Ha, actually studies prove men and women are mostly physically identical! I sure showed you, you sexist!” I worry that Hyde’s analysis plays the same trick. She does a wonderful job finding that men and women have minimal differences in eg “likelihood of smiling when not being observed”, “interpersonal leadership style”, et cetera. But if you ask the man on the street “Are men and women different?”, he’s likely to say something like “Yeah, men are more aggressive and women are more sensitive”. And in fact, Hyde found that men were indeed definitely more aggressive, and women indeed definitely more sensitive. But throw in a hundred other effects nobody cares about like “likelihood of smiling when not observed”, and you can report that “78% of gender differences are small or zero”. Hyde found moderate or large gender differences in (and here I’m paraphrasing very scientific-sounding constructs into more understandable terms) aggressiveness, horniness, language abilities, mechanical abilities, visuospatial skills, mechanical ability, tendermindness, assertiveness, comfort with body, various physical abilities, and computer skills. Perhaps some peeople might think that finding moderate-to-large-differences in mechanical abilities, computer skills, etc supports the idea that gender differences might play a role in gender balance in the tech industry. But because Hyde’s meta-analysis drowns all of this out with stuff about smiling-when-not-observed, Grant is able to make it sound like Hyde proves his point. It’s actually worse than this, because Grant misreports the study findings in various ways [EDIT: Or possibly not, see ]. For example, he states that the sex differences in physical aggression and physical strength are “large”. The study very specifically says the opposite of this. Its three different numbers for physical aggression (from three different studies) are 0.4, 0.59, and 0.6, and it sets a cutoff for “large” effects at 0.66 or more. On the other hand, Grant fails to report an effect that actually is large: mechanical reasoning ability (in the paper as Feingold 1998 DAT mechanical reasoning). Baldwin and Sorkin will join Craig Zadan and Neil Meron as executive producers of A Few Good Men. Zadan and Meron's Hairspray Live! (Photo by Rosalind O'Connor/NBC). Jul 17, 2017 05:04 PM ET. A Few Good Men is NBC's first live production of a Broadway drama in more than 50 years. Its recent stage. A Few Good Men is a 1992 American legal drama film directed by Rob Reiner and starring Tom Cruise, Jack Nicholson, and Demi Moore, with Kevin Bacon, Kevin Pollak, Wolfgang Bodison, James Marshall, J. Walsh and Kiefer Sutherland in supporting roles. It was adapted for the screen by Aaron Sorkin from his play of. Our 2017 Anniversary Sale is over. Shop the styles currently on sale for women, men, kids & the home at Nordstrom.com. Follow us for updates & more. A Few Good Men is a play by Aaron Sorkin, first produced on Broadway by David Brown in 1989. It tells the story of military lawyers at a court-martial who uncover a high-level conspiracy in the course of defending their clients, two United States Marines accused of murder. It opened on Broadway at the Music Box Theatre in. There is a large gender difference on this, d = 0.76. And although Hyde doesn’t look into it in her meta-analysis, other meta-analyses find a large effect size (d = 1.18) for thing-oriented vs. People-oriented interest, the very claim that the argument that Grant is trying to argue against centers around. So Grant tries to argue against large thing-oriented vs. People-oriented differences by citing a meta-analysis that doesn’t look into them at all. He then misreports the findings of that meta-analysis, exaggerating effects that fit his thesis and failing to report the ones that don’t. Finally, he cites a “summary statistic” that averages away the variation we’re looking for out by combining it with a bunch of noise, and claims the noise proves his point even though the variation is as big as ever. Next, Grant claims that there are no sex differences in mathematical ability, and also that the sex differences in mathematical ability are culturally determined. I’m not really sure what he means [EDIT: He means sex differences that exist in other countries] but I agree with his first argument – at the levels we’re looking at, there’s no gender difference in math ability. Grant says that these foreign differences in math ability exist but are due to stereotypes, and so are less noticeable in more progressive, gender-equitable nations: Girls do as well as boys—or slightly better—in math in elementary, but boys have an edge by high school. Male advantages are more likely to exist in countries that lack gender equity in school enrollment, women in research jobs, and women in parliament—and that have stereotypes associating science with males. Again, my research suggests no average gender difference in ability, so I can’t speak to whether these differences are caused by stereotypes or not. But I want to go back to the original question: why is there a gender difference in tech-industry-representation [in the US]? Is this also due to stereotypes and the effect of an insufficiently gender-equitable society? Do we find that “countries that lack gender equity in school enrollment” and “stereotypes associating science with males” have fewer women in tech? Investigated the percent of women in computer classes all around the world. Her number of 26% for the US is slightly higher than I usually hear, probably because it’s older (the percent women in computing has actually gone down over time!). The least sexist countries I can think of – Sweden, New Zealand, Canada, etc – all have somewhere around the same number (30%, 20%, and 24%, respectively). The most sexist countries do extremely well on this metric! The highest numbers on the chart are all from non-Western, non-First-World countries that do middling-to-poor on the: Thailand with 55%, Guyana with 54%, Malaysia with 51%, Iran with 41%, Zimbabwe with 41%, and Mexico with 39%. Needless to say, Zimbabwe is not exactly famous for its deep commitment to gender equality. It’s a very common and well-replicated finding that the more progressive and gender-equal a country, the larger gender differences in personality of the sort Hyde found become. I agree this is a very strange finding, but it’s definitely true. See eg Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,: Previous research suggested that sex differences in personality traits are larger in prosperous, healthy, and egalitarian cultures in which women have more opportunities equal with those of men. In this article, the authors report cross-cultural findings in which this unintuitive result was replicated across samples from 55 nations (n = 17,637). In case you’re wondering, the countries with the highest gender differences in personality are France, Netherlands, and the Czech Republic. The countries with the lowest sex differences are Indonesia, Fiji, and the Congo. I conclude that whatever gender-equality-stereotype-related differences Grant has found in the nonexistent math ability difference between men and women, they are more than swamped by the large opposite effects in gender differences in personality. This meshes with what I’ve been saying all along: at the level we’re talking about here, it’s not about ability, it’s about interest. We know that interests are highly malleable. Female students become significantly more interested in science careers after having a teacher who discusses the problem of underrepresentation. And at Harvey Mudd College, computer science majors were around 10% women a decade ago. Today they’re 55%. I highly recommend Freddie deBoer’s. If an educational program shows amazing results, and there’s any possible way it’s selection bias – then it’s selection bias. I looked into Harvey Mudd’s STEM admission numbers, and, sure enough, they. So, yeah, it’s selection bias. I don’t blame them. All they have to do is cultivate a reputation as a place to go if you’re a woman interested in computer science, attract lots of female CS applicants, then make sure to admit all the CS-interested female applicants they get. In exchange, they get constant glowing praise from every newspaper in the country (,,,,,,,,,, etc, etc, etc). How would we know this was selection bias if we couldn’t just look at the numbers? The graph that Grant himself cites just above this statement shows that, over the same ten year period, percent women CS graduates has declined nationwide. This has corresponded with such a massive push to get more women in tech thatwell, that a college which succeeds will get constant glowing praise from every newspaper in the country even when they admit they’re using selection bias. Do you think no one else has tried? Every college diversity office in the country is working overtime to try to get more women into tech, there are women in tech scholarships, women in tech conferences, women in tech prizes – and, over the period that’s happened, Grant’s own graph shows the percent of women in tech going down. (I don’t understand why it’s going down as opposed to steady, but my guess is a combination of constant messaging that there are no women in tech making women think it isn’t for them, plus the effect from society getting more gender-equitable that we described in Part II – ie we’re now less like Zimbabwe, and so we can’t expect our gender ratios to be as good as theirs are). If I recruit only gingers, and I admit only gingers, I can get a 100% ginger CS program. That doesn’t mean I’ve proven that gingers are really more interested in CS than everyone else, and it was just discrimination holding them back. It means I’ve done what every single private school and college does anyway, all the time – finagle with admissions to make myself look good. [EDIT: Some further discussion by Mudd students in the comments ] IV. Back to Grant: 4. There are sex differences in interests, but they’re not biologically determined. The data on occupational interests do reveal strong male preferences for working with things and strong female preferences for working with people. But they also reveal that men and women are equally interested in working with data. So why are there so many more male than female engineers? Because women have systematically been discouraged from working with computers. Look at trends in college majors: since the 1980s, the proportion of female majors has gone up in science and medicine and law, but down in computer science. Before we discuss this, a quick step back. In the year 1850, women were locked out of almost every major field, with a few exceptions like nursing and teaching. The average man of the day would have been equally confident that women were unfit for law, unfit for medicine, unfit for mathematics, unfit for linguistics, unfit for engineering, unfit for journalism, unfit for psychology, and unfit for biology. He would have had various sexist justifications – women shouldn’t be in law because it’s too competitive and high-pressure; women shouldn’t be in medicine because they’re fragile and will faint at the sight of blood; et cetera. As the feminist movement gradually took hold, women conquered one of these fields after another. 51% of law students are now female. So are 49.8% of medical students, 45% of math majors, 60% of linguistics majors, 60% of journalism majors, 75% of psychology majors, and 60% of biology postdocs. Yet for some reason, engineering remains only about 20% female. And everyone says “Aha! I bet it’s because of negative stereotypes!” This makes no sense. There were negative stereotypes about everything! Somebody has to explain why the equal and greater negative stereotypes against women in law, medicine, etc were completely powerless, yet for some reason the negative stereotypes in engineering were the ones that took hold and prevented women from succeeding there. And if your answer is just going to be that apparently the negative stereotypes in engineering were stronger than the negative stereotypes about everything else, why would that be? Put yourself in the shoes of our Victorian sexist, trying to maintain his male privilege. He thinks to himself “Well, I suppose I could tolerate women doctors saving my life. And if I had to, I would accept women going into law and determining who goes free and who goes to jail. I’m even sort of okay with women going into journalism and crafting the narratives that shape our world. But women building bridges? NO MERE FEMALE COULD EVER DO SUCH A THING!” Really? This is the best explanation the world can come up with? Doesn’t anyone have at least a little bit of curiousity about this? (and I don’t think it’s just coincidence – ie I don’t think it’s just that a bunch of head engineers happened to be really sexist, and a bunch of head doctors happened to be really non-sexist. The same patterns apply through pretty much every First World country, and if it were just a matter of personalities you would expect them to differ from place to place.) Whenever I ask this question, I get something like “engineering and computer science are two of the highest-paying, highest-status jobs, so of course men would try to keep women out of them, in order to maintain their supremacy”. But I notice that doctors and lawyers are also pretty high-paying, high-status jobs, and that nothing of the sort happened there. And that when people aren’t using engineering/programming’s high status to justify their beliefs about gender stereotypes in it, they’re ruthlessly making fun of engineers and programmers, whether it’s watching Big Bang Theory or reading Dilbert or just going on about “pocket protectors”. Meanwhile, men make up only, only, only, about, about of forensic scientists, about, and. Note that many of these imbalances are even more lopsided than the imbalance favoring men in technology, and that many of these jobs earn much more than the average programmer. For example, the average computer programmer only makes; the average veterinarian makes, and the average pediatrician makes a whopping. As long as you’re comparing some poor woman janitor to a male programmer making $80,000, you can talk about how it’s clearly sexism against women getting the good jobs. But once you take off the blinders and try to look at an even slightly bigger picture, you start wondering why veterinarians, who make even more money than that, are even more lopsidedly female than programmers are male. And then you start thinking that maybe you need some framework more sophisticated than the simple sexism theory in order to predict who’s doing all of these different jobs. And once you have that framework, maybe the sexism theory isn’t necessary any longer, and you can throw it out, and use the same theory to predict why women dominate veterinary medicine and psychology, why men dominate engineering and computer science, and why none of this has any relation at all to what fields that some sexist in the 1850s wanted to keep women out of. So let’s look deeper into what prevents women from entering these STEM fields. Does it happen at the college level? Taking AP Computer Science are women. The ratio of women graduating from college with computer science degrees is exactly what you would expect from the ratio of women who showed interest in it in high school (the numbers are even lower in Britain, where are girls). So differences exist before the college level, and nothing that happens at the college level – no discriminatory professors, no sexist classmates – change the numbers at all. Does it happen at the high school level? There’s not a lot of obvious room for discrimination – AP classes are voluntary; students who want to go into them do, and students who don’t want to go into them don’t. There are no prerequisites except basic mathematical competency or other open-access courses. It seems like of the people who voluntarily choose to take AP classes that nobody can stop them from going into, 80% are men and 20% are women, which exactly matches the ratio of each gender that eventually get tech company jobs. Rather than go through every step individually, I’ll skip to the punch and point out that the same pattern in middle school, elementary school, and about as young as anybody has ever bothered checking. So something produces these differences very early on? What might that be? Might young women be avoiding computers because they’ve absorbed stereotypes telling them that they’re not smart enough, or that they’re “only for boys”? As per, “[undergraduate] females strongly agreed with the statement ‘females have as much ability as males when learning to use computers’, and strongly disagreed with the statement ‘studying about computers is more important for men than for women’. On a scale of 1-5, where 5 represents complete certainty in gender equality in computer skills, and 1 completely certainty in inequality, the average woman chooses 4.2; the average male 4.03. This seems to have been true since the very beginning of the age of personal computers: finds that “there were no significant differences between males and females in their attitudes of efficacy or sense of confidence in ability to use the computer, contrary to expectationfemales [showed] stronger beliefs in equity of ability and competencies in use of the computer.” This is a very consistent result and you can find other studies corroborating it in the bibliographies of both papers. Might girls be worried not by stereotypes about computers themselves, but by stereotypes that girls are bad at math and so can’t succeed in the math-heavy world of computer science? About, compared to (again) only 20% of computer science majors. Undergraduate mathematics itself more-or-less shows gender parity. This can’t be an explanation for the computer results. Might sexist parents be buying computers for their sons but not their daughters, giving boys a leg up in learning computer skills? In the 80s and 90s, was certain that this was the cause of the gap. Newspapers would tell lurid (and entirely hypothetical) stories of girls sitting down to use a computer when suddenly a boy would show up, push her away, and demand it all to himself. But move forward a few decades and now – with little change in the high school computer interest numbers. So that isn’t it either. So if it happens before middle school, and it’s not stereotypes, what might it be? One subgroup of women does not display these gender differences at any age. These are women with congenital adrenal hyperplasia, a condition that gives them a more typically-male hormone balance. For a good review, see. They find that: Consistent with hormone effects on interests, females with CAH are considerably more interested than are females without CAH in male-typed toys, leisure activities, and occupations, from childhood through adulthood (reviewed in Blakemore et al., 2009; Cohen-Bendahan et al., 2005); adult females with CAH also engage more in male-typed occupations than do females without CAH (Frisén et al., 2009). Male-typed interests of females with CAH are associated with degree of androgen exposure, which can be inferred from genotype or disease characteristics (Berenbaum et al., 2000; Meyer-Bahlburg et al., 2006; Nordenström et al., 2002). Interests of males with CAH are similar to those of males without CAH because both are exposed to high (sex-typical) prenatal androgens and are reared as boys. Females with CAH do not provide a perfect test of androgen effects on gendered characteristics because they differ from females without CAH in other ways; most notably they have masculinized genitalia that might affect their socialization. But, there is no evidence that parents treat girls with CAH in a more masculine or less feminine way than they treat girls without CAH (Nordenström et al., 2002; Pasterski et al., 2005). Further, some findings from females with CAH have been confirmed in typical individuals whose postnatal behavior has been associated with prenatal hormone levels measured in amniotic fluid. Amniotic testosterone levels were found to correlate positively with parent-reported male-typed play in girls and boys at ages 6 to 10 years (Auyeung et al., 2009). The psychological mechanism through which androgen affects interests has not been well-investigated, but there is some consensus that sex differences in interests reflect an orientation toward people versus things (Diekman et al., 2010) or similar constructs, such as organic versus inorganic objects (Benbow et al., 2000). The Things-People distinction is, in fact, the major conceptual dimension underlying the measurement of the most widely-used model of occupational interests (Holland, 1973; Prediger, 1982); it has also been used to represent leisure interests (Kerby and Ragan, 2002) and personality (Lippa, 1998). In their own study, they compare 125 such women and find a Things-People effect size of -0.75 – that is, the difference between CAH women and unaffected women is more than half the difference between men and unaffected women. They write: The results support the hypothesis that sex differences in occupational interests are due, in part, to prenatal androgen influences on differential orientation to objects versus people. Compared to unaffected females, females with CAH reported more interest in occupations related to Things versus People, and relative positioning on this interest dimension was substantially related to amount of prenatal androgen exposure. What is this “object vs. People” distinction? It’s pretty relevant. Meta-analyses have shown a (d = 1.18) difference in healthy men and women (ie without CAH) in this domain. It’s traditionally summarized as “men are more interested in things and women are more interested in people”. I would flesh out “things” to include both physical objects like machines as well as complex abstract systems; I’d also add in another finding from those same studies that men are more risk-taking and like danger. And I would flesh out “people” to include communities, talking, helping, children, and animals. So this theory predicts that men will be more likely to choose jobs with objects, machines, systems, and danger; women will be more likely to choose jobs with people, talking, helping, children, and animals. Somebody armed with this theory could pretty well pretty well predict that women would be interested in going into medicine and law, since both of them involve people, talking, and helping. They would predict that women would dominate veterinary medicine (animals, helping), psychology (people, talking, helping, sometimes children), and education (people, children, helping). Of all the hard sciences, they might expect women to prefer biology (animals). And they might expect men to do best in engineering (objects, machines, abstract systems, sometimes danger) and computer science (machines, abstract systems). I mentioned that about 50% of medical students were female, but this masks a lot of variation. There are wide differences in doctor gender by medical specialty. For example: A privilege-based theory fails – there’s not much of a tendency for women to be restricted to less prestigious and lower-paying fields – Ob/Gyn (mostly female) is extremely lucrative, and internal medicine (mostly male) is pretty low-paying for a medical job. But the people/thing theory above does extremely well! Pediatrics is babies/children, Psychiatry is people/talking (and of course women are disproportionately child psychiatrists), OB/GYN is babies (though admittedly this probably owes a lot to patients being more comfortable with female gynecologists) and family medicine is people/talking/babies/children. Meanwhile, Radiology is machines and no patient contact, Anaesthesiology is also machines and no patient contact, Emergency Medicine is danger, and Surgery is machines, danger, and no patient contact. Here’s another fun thing you can do with this theory: understand why women are so well represented in college math classes. Women are around 20% of CS majors, physics majors, engineering majors, etc – but of math majors! This should be shocking. Aren’t we constantly told that women are bombarded with stereotypes about math being for men? Isn’t the archetypal example of children learning gender roles that Barbie doll that said “Math is hard, let’s go shopping?” And yet women’s representation in undergraduate math classes is really quite good. I was totally confused by this for a while until a commenter directed me to the data on. The answer is mostly: they become math teachers. They work in elementary schools and high schools, with people. Then all those future math teachers leave for the schools after undergrad, and so math grad school ends up with as CS, physics, and engineering grad school. This seems to me like the clearest proof that women being underrepresented in CS/physics/etc is just about different interests. It’s not that they can’t do the work – all those future math teachers do just as well in their math majors as everyone else. It’s not that stereotypes of what girls can and can’t do are making them afraid to try – whatever stereotypes there are about women and math haven’t dulled future math teachers’ willingness to compete difficult math courses one bit. And it’s not even about colleges being discriminatory and hostile (or at least however discriminatory and hostile they are it doesn’t drive away those future math teachers). It’s just that women are more interested in some jobs, and men are more interested in others. Figure out a way to make math people-oriented, and women flock to it. If there were as many elementary school computer science teachers as there are math teachers, gender balance there would equalize without any other effort. I’m not familiar with any gender breakdown of legal specialties, but I will bet you that family law, child-related law, and various prosocial helping-communities law are disproportionately female, and patent law, technology law, and law working with scary dangerous criminals are disproportionately male. And so on for most other fields. This theory gives everyone what they want. It explains the data about women in tech. It explains the time course around women in tech. It explains other jobs like veterinary medicine where women dominate. It explains which medical subspecialties women will be dominant or underrepresented in. It doesn’t claim that women are “worse than men” or “biologically inferior” at anything. It doesn’t say that no woman will ever be interested in things, or no man ever interested in people. It doesn’t say even that women in tech don’t face a lot of extra harassment (any domain with more men than women will see more potential perpetrators concentrating their harassment concentrated on fewer potential victims, which will result in each woman being more harassed). It just says that sometimes, in a population-based way that doesn’t necessarily apply to any given woman or any given man, women and men will have some different interests. Which should be pretty obvious to anyone who’s spent more than a few minutes with men or women. Why am I writing this? Grant’s piece was in response to a person at Google sending out a memo claiming some of this stuff. Here is a pretty typical response that a Googler sent to that memo – I’ve blocked the name so this person doesn’t get harassed over it, but if you doubt this is real I can direct you to the original: A lot of people without connections to the tech industry don’t realize how bad it’s gotten. This is how bad. It would be pointless trying to do anything about this person in particular. This is the climate. Silicon Valley was supposed to be better than this. It was supposed to be the life of the mind, where people who were interested in the mysteries of computation and cognition could get together and make the world better for everybody. Now it’s degenerated into this giant hatefest of everybody writing long screeds calling everyone else Nazis and demanding violence against them. Where if someone disagrees with the consensus, it’s just taken as a matter of course that we need to hunt them down, deny them of the cloak of anonymity, fire them, and blacklist them so they can never get a job again. Where the idea that we shouldn’t be a surveillance society where we carefully watch our coworkers for signs of sexism so we can report them to the authorities is exactly the sort of thing you get reported to the authorities if people see you saying. On the Twitter debate on this, someone mentioned that people felt afraid to share their thoughts anymore. An official, blue-checkmarked Woman In Tech activist responded with (note the 500+ likes): This is the world we’ve built. Where making people live in fear is a feature, not a bug. And: it can get worse. If you only read one link, let it be this one about A sample quote: One author and former diversity advocate described why she no longer takes part: “I have never seen social interaction this fucked up,” she wrote in an email. “And I’ve been in prison.” Many members of YA Book Twitter have become culture cops, monitoring their peers across multiple platforms for violations. The result is a jumble of dogpiling and dragging, subtweeting and screenshotting, vote-brigading and flagging wars, with accusations of white supremacy on one side and charges of thought-policing moral authoritarianism on the other. Representatives of both factions say they’ve received threats or had to shut down their accounts owing to harassment, and all expressed fear of being targeted by influential community members — even when they were ostensibly on the same side. “If anyone found out I was talking to you,” Mimi told me, “I would be blackballed.” Dramatic as that sounds, it’s worth noting that my attempts to report this piece were met with intense pushback. Sinyard politely declined my request for an interview in what seemed like a routine exchange, but then announced on Twitter that our interaction had “scared” her, leading to backlash from community members who insisted that the as-yet-unwritten story would endanger her life. Grant’s response. Original post in black, Grant’s comments in blue. An article by Adam Grant called Differences Between Men And Women Are Vastly Exaggerated is going viral, thanks in part to a share by Facebook exec Sheryl Sandberg. It’s a response to an email by a Google employee saying that he thought Google’s low female representation wasn’t a result of sexism, but a result of men and women having different interests long before either gender thinks about joining Google. Grant says that gender differences are small and irrelevant to the current issue. Thank you, Scott, for the thoughtful response. It’s a model of what intellectual disagreement should look like. I agree with some of your points and disagree with others. I hope the comments below continue the data-driven focus and respectful tone of the dialogue. Your comments are in black, mine are in blue. The meta-analysis Grant cites is Hyde’s, available here. I’ve looked into it before, and I don’t think it shows what he wants it to show She does a wonderful job finding that men and women have minimal differences in eg “likelihood of smiling when not being observed”, “interpersonal leadership style”, et cetera. But if you ask the man on the street “Are men and women different?”, he’s likely to say something like “Yeah, men are more aggressive and women are more sensitive”. And in fact, Hyde found that men were indeed definitely more aggressive, and women indeed definitely more sensitive. But throw in a hundred other effects nobody cares about like “likelihood of smiling when not observed”, and you can report that “78% of gender differences are small or zero”. Let’s not overstate how many meaningful comparisons are in the Hyde analysis: no or small differences in math computation, math concepts, math problem solving, reading comprehension, vocabulary, math ability, perceptual speed, science, and a range of leadership dimensions. And no differences in job preferences for power, challenge, security, and pay. It’s actually worse than this, because Grant misreports the study findings in various ways. For example, he states that the sex differences in physical aggression and physical strength are “large”. The study very specifically says the opposite of this. Its three different numbers for physical aggression (from three different studies) are 0.4, 0.59, and 0.6, and it sets a cutoff for “large” effects at 0.66. On the other hand, Grant fails to report an effect that actually is large: mechanical reasoning ability (in the paper as Feingold 1998 DAT mechanical reasoning). There is a large gender difference on this, d = 0.76. There is no misreporting here. I included physical aggression because the most recent meta-analysis reported by Hyde—which has the largest number of studies—had effect sizes up to.84. I didn’t mention mechanical reasoning (d=.76) because it fell below the accepted benchmark for large effect sizes of.8 (see Cohen, 1992). I also excluded men doing more helping when observed (d=.74) and mental rotation (d=.73) for the same reason. And physical strength does have large effect sizes of 2.18 for throw velocity and 1.98 for throw distance (only grip strength falls in the moderate range of.66). And although Hyde doesn’t look into it in her meta-analysis, multiple other meta-analyses, like this one, find a large effect size (d = 1.18) for thing-oriented vs. People-oriented interest, the very claim that the argument that Grant is trying to argue against centers around. Actually, I cited that very evidence in my point #4: “The data on occupational interests do reveal strong male preferences for working with things and strong female preferences for working with people.” It’s surprising that you don’t mention interests in working with data vs. Ideas, which is the other major dimension of interests along with people-things. The Google memo neglected it too. The same meta-analysis shows that men and women are equally interested in working with data. If interests are really a major driver of the low proportion of women in tech jobs, you should see equal gender differences in data-focused jobs, which you don’t. Grant claims that there are no sex differences in mathematical ability, then goes on to claim that the sex differences in mathematical ability are culturally determined. Actually, I wrote that the math ability data show no sex differences in the U.S. But differences in other countries. Since Grant and I agree that there is no gender difference in ability, then we should probably redirect ourselves back to the original question: why is there a gender difference in tech-industry-representation? Here his theory that this reflects “countries that lack gender equity in school enrollment” and “stereotypes associating science with males” fails. It’s not my theory. It’s the result of the meta-analysis I cited and a more recent cross-national comparison. And it doesn’t fail, for reasons I’ll spell out below. Galpin investigated the percent of women in computer classes all around the world. Her number of 26% for the US is slightly higher than I usually hear, probably because it’s older (the percent women in computing has actually gone down over time!). The least sexist countries I can think of – Sweden, New Zealand, Canada, etc – all have somewhere around the same number (30%, 20%, and 24%, respectively). The most sexist countries do extremely well on this metric! The highest numbers on the chart are all from non-Western, non-First-World countries that do middling-to-poor on the Gender Development Index: Thailand with 55%, Guyana with 54%, Malaysia with 51%, Iran with 41%, Zimbabwe with 41%, and Mexico with 39%. Needless to say, Zimbabwe is not exactly famous for its deep commitment to gender equality. It’s a very common and well-replicated finding that the more progressive and gender-equal a country, the larger gender differences in personality of the sort Hyde found become. I agree this is a very strange finding, but it’s definitely true. See eg Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Sex Differences In Big Five Personality Traits Across 55 Cultures: Previous research suggested that sex differences in personality traits are larger in prosperous, healthy, and egalitarian cultures in which women have more opportunities equal with those of men. In this article, the authors report cross-cultural findings in which this unintuitive result was replicated across samples from 55 nations (n = 17,637). You’re right about the data but missed the punch line of the analysis. From the paper you cited: “Changes in men’s personality traits appeared to be the primary cause of sex difference variation across cultures.” It’s not that women become more communal or feminine in egalitarian cultures. It’s that men become more disagreeable. Which is consistent with research on precarious manhood, which suggests that in egalitarian countries, men are more likely to feel that their status is threatened—and respond with more dominant “alpha” behaviors. I conclude that whatever gender-equality-stereotype-related differences Grant has found in the nonexistent math ability difference between men and women, they are more than swamped by the large opposite effects in gender differences in personality. This meshes with what I’ve been saying all along: outside a few exceptions that don’t matter for the current discussion, it’s not about ability, it’s about interest. I concur that it’s about interests, not ability. But I think we disagree on the sources of interests. Let’s not take them as given; they can be changed, and they have been changed by cultural and structural biases. Per above, there are no differences between men and women in interests in data, which should mean we have far more women than we do in data-focused computer science and engineering jobs data. I highly recommend Freddie deBoer’s Why Selection Bias Is The Most Powerful Force In Education. If an educational program shows amazing results, and there’s any possible way it’s selection bias, it’s selection bias. I looked into Harvey Mudd’s STEM admission numbers, and, sure enough, they admits women at 2.5x the rate as men. So, yeah, it’s selection bias. I don’t blame them. All they have to do is cultivate a reputation as a place to go if you’re a woman interested in computer science, attract lots of female CS applicants, then make sure to admit all the CS-interested female applicants they get. In exchange, they get constant glowing praise from every newspaper in the country (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, etc, etc, etc). Selection bias may be a factor, but it’s not the only factor. Harvey Mudd was 42% women in 2011, 47% in 2013, and 46% in 2016—hardly enough to account for a spike in female computer science majors from 40% in 2013 to 55% in 2016, or a spike in women taking tech jobs from 30% in 2011 to 55% in 2016. Also, MIT accepts women at twice the rate of men, but last fall less than 40% of their undergraduate computer science students were women. So let’s not throw out the baby with the bathwater. As the feminist movement gradually took hold, women conquered one of these fields after another. 51% of law students are now female. So are 49.8% of medical students, 45% of math majors, 60% of linguistics majors, 60% of journalism majors, 75% of psychology majors, and 60% of biology postdocs. Yet for some reason, engineering remains only about 20% female. And everyone says “Aha! I bet it’s because of negative stereotypes!” This makes no sense. There were negative stereotypes about everything! Somebody has to explain why the equal and greater negative stereotypes against women in law, medicine, etc were completely powerless, yet for some reason the negative stereotypes in engineering were the ones that took hold and prevented women from succeeding there. I agree that we need to learn much more about why women have systematically been less likely to pursue computer science and engineering than other STEM professions. But the broader point is that when you see the U.S. Computer science majors dropping from 37% women in the mid-1980s to below 20% women by 2010, you can’t claim gender differences in interests are biological. Female biology didn’t change in a quarter century. And my response to Grant’s response, Part I (too long to be single comment). Still Grant in blue, I (Scott) am in black: There is no misreporting here. I included physical aggression because the most recent meta-analysis reported by Hyde—which has the largest number of studies—had effect sizes up to.84. I didn’t mention mechanical reasoning (d=.76) because it fell below the accepted benchmark for large effect sizes of.8 (see Cohen, 1992). I also excluded men doing more helping when observed (d=.74) and mental rotation (d=.73) for the same reason. And physical strength does have large effect sizes of 2.18 for throw velocity and 1.98 for throw distance (only grip strength falls in the moderate range of.66). First of all, Grant is absolutely right, I missed the study by Archer. For readers: Hyde’s meta-analysis reports four people’s work on aggression, each of whom finds four different effects sizes. First, the three I mentioned: 0.4, 0.59, 0.6. And second, a researcher named Archer who found a range of effect sizes from 0.33 – 0.8. Although it still seems like most of the effect sizes she found were below a threshold for large, and even Archer found a range whose center isn’t large, if you take the largest number in the largest study, you can pass the threshold for large. So I shouldn’t have levied the accusation of misreporting, and I’m sorry. On the other hand, although Cohen does call an effect of 0.8 “large”, Hyde in her study says she’ll be using 0.66. While neither of these people is better than the other, I feel like combining one person’s results with another person’s definition gives you so many degrees of freedom that you can get whatever you want. And even if we grant all of this, the best we can do is say that one person, one time, got an anomalously high result for physical aggression of 0.8, whereas mechanical reasoning is “only” 0.76 and so doesn’t meet an 0.8 threshold. In real life, these effects are clearly of approximately equal magnitude. In other words, if you carefully select which data you’re using and carefully select which definition you’re using, all cherry-picked to exaggerate some things and minimize others, you can make it look like physical aggression crosses an arbitrary threshold, but mechanical reasoning doesn’t (even though mechanical reasoning is higher than most measures of physical aggression). But to sum this up, as Grant did, as “You can make a case for having more men than women if you’re fielding a sports team or collecting semen”, but making it sound ridiculous to care about gender if you’re doing mechanical work, I still think is a biased reading of the data. I apologize for accusing Grant of literal misreporting, but I still think his whole argument hinges on reporting a trait that averages around 0.6 but which one outlier found to be 0.8 as “large”, while simultaneously implying a trait that’s at 0.76 is so small it might as well not exist. My response to Grant’s response, Part II (too long to be single comment) I concur that it’s about interests, not ability. But I think we disagree on the sources of interests. Let’s not take them as given; they can be changed, and they have been changed by cultural and structural biases. Per above, there are no differences between men and women in interests in data, which should mean we have far more women than we do in data-focused computer science and engineering jobs data. As above, I continue to think the “data” argument is a red herring due to it not meaning what people think it means. I continue to think the evidence from congenital adrenal hyperplasia is convincing. But if you don’t like that, I’m happy to cite all the studies showing that other animals have the same division in interests we do eg,. Or all the studies showing that prenatal hormone exposure shapes interests, like,, and. I agree that some differences are probably due to stereotypes – though I challenge how strong these stereotypes can be given their failure to keep women out of medicine, law, biology, etc. The question isn’t whether any of it is due to stereotypes. The question is whether any of it isn’t. I think there’s good evidence that the parts that aren’t are the main determining factors right now. Selection bias may be a factor, but it’s not the only factor. Harvey Mudd was 42% women in 2011, 47% in 2013, and 46% in 2016—hardly enough to account for a spike in female computer science majors from 40% in 2013 to 55% in 2016, or a spike in women taking tech jobs from 30% in 2011 to 55% in 2016. Also, MIT accepts women at twice the rate of men, but last fall less than 40% of their undergraduate computer science students were women. So let’s not throw out the baby with the bathwater. I’m not sure what you’re saying. The question isn’t how many women are at Harvey Mudd. The question is how many women were accepted to their CS program just for being women. Suppose I have a college with 10,000 people, 20% of whom are gingers. It also has a computer science department with 500 people, 10% of whom are gingers. Everyone graduates and I admit a new class, exactly the same except that I’ve made sure to admit 250 gingers who resumes say that they’ve longed their whole life to study computer science. Now my college is 2250/10,000 = 22.5% ginger, but my CS department is 250/500 = 50% ginger. I boast of having instituted pro-ginger policies in my CS department that have removed the stigma against gingers in tech. When somebody says it’s selection bias, I say “No, look, the college only went up from 20% ginger to 22.5% ginger, not nearly enough to cause such a difference!” It doesn’t matter how much the college as a whole admits women, compared to how much they admit women interested in CS. [EDIT: This may be wrong. See discussion thread starting ] Also, MIT admitting 2x more women than men matches nicely with their computer science department being 40% women (= 2x the national average of 20%). Harvey Mudd admitted 2.5x more women than men matches nicely with their computer science being 55% women (just a hair over 2.5x the national average of 20%). Plus everyone in this discussion agrees that a bunch of colleges are desperately trying to admit as many women as they can to get even close to parity in CS. I agree that we need to learn much more about why women have systematically been less likely to pursue computer science and engineering than other STEM professions. But the broader point is that when you see the U.S. Computer science majors dropping from 37% women in the mid-1980s to below 20% women by 2010, you can’t claim gender differences in interests are biological. Female biology didn’t change in a quarter century. I agree this is surprising. But let’s also not claim it supports the sexism theory, unless you think people in computer science became more sexist between 1980 and today for some reason. My impression is that there were lots of women in CS in 1980 for the same reason there were lots of Jews in banking in 1800: they were banned from doing anything else. Computer programming was originally considered sort of a natural outgrowth of being a secretary (remember, 77% of data entry specialists are still female today, probably because it’s also considered a natural outgrowth of being a secretary). Women had lots of opportunity in it, and a lot of women who couldn’t break into other professions naturally went into it. From a on the topic, my emphases: As late as the 1960s many people perceived computer programming as a natural career choice for savvy young women. Even the trend-spotters at Cosmopolitan Magazine urged their fashionable female readership to consider careers in programming. In an article titled “The Computer Girls,” the magazine described the field as offering better job opportunities for women than many other professional careers. As computer scientist Dr. Grace Hopper told a reporter, programming was “just like planning a dinner. You have to plan ahead and schedule everything so that it’s ready when you need it. Women are ‘naturals’ at computer programming.” James Adams, the director of education for the Association for Computing Machinery, agreed: “I don’t know of any other field, outside of teaching, where there’s as much opportunity for a woman.” Then people let women become doctors and lawyers, so a bunch of the smart ones went off and did that instead. You can see the same thing going on with teachers. There’s been a huge decline in the percent of the most talented women who become teachers. Is a good overview, although it’s mostly focused on the point that measures of teacher quality don’t predict anything anyway so we shouldn’t care. In the late 1950s, about 16% of top-decile-intelligence women became schoolteachers; by the 1990s, only about 7% did. Again, no change in biology. No change in stereotypes. But a huge change in other options. Women are less likely to be interested in programming than men. But if you ban the smart women from every other occupation – well, they’ll take it. Once you unban them, they’ll go to other things they like more, like being veterinarians (80% women) and forensic scientists (74% women). My guess is in 1980, neither of those careers had many women in them. Where did all those super-smart women who now dominate the fields come from? Probably places like schoolteaching and programming! This is exactly what the researchers cited above are saying about sex differences accentuating in more gender-equitable countries. If we were less gender-equitable now, women would take whatever they could get. Now that we’re more gender-equitable, they take things which correspond to their gender-specific interests, like veterinary medicine, and we observe larger sex differences. If we continue to insist that, no, women really want to do tech, but stereotypes and sexists are pushing them out, we’ll end up with constantly increasing social engineering to prevent stereotypes, and constantly increasing purges to ferret out sexists (and “benevolent sexists”, and “unconscious sexists”, and people who are progressive but not progressive enough, and so on). Since these will never work (or even have paradoxical effects for the reasons mentioned above), we’ll just ramp these up more and more forever. I’m saying we don’t have to do this. We can fight any stereotypes and sexists we find, but understand we’re doing this in a context where even 100% success won’t achieve perfect gender balance. Oct 17, 2017 - 2 minCostumes in poor taste are an annual occurrence on Halloween. Here are some costumes. Pink Dot 2017 ad placement found in Cathay Cineleisure sparked police reports from netizens against the controversial LGBTQ event in Singapore. The netizens. Pink Dot 2017 ad placement found in Cathay Cineleisure sparked police reports from netizens against the controversial LGBTQ event in Singapore. The netizens discussing the ad were part of a group called “We are against Pinkdot in Singapore”. The ad was first brought to attention by a Facebook user, and quickly escalated into a flurry of discussion over which mall the ad appeared in and criticisms towards both Pink Dot organisers and Cathay Cineleisure mall for displaying the ad. A quick check by Marketing confirmed that the ad was placed on one of the escalators of the building. Marketing understands that Pink Dot organisers were allowed to engage in promotional activities as long as they held a license. Marketing has reached out to SPF for comment. When contacted by Marketing, a Cathay spokesperson said that as an entertainment company, Cathay has always believed in an all-inclusive society where there is a place for everyone to call home. “This is and has always been in line with our mission of bringing people together. We hope to inspire people to embrace the values of equality where one can live and love freely,” the Cathay spokesperson added. This is not the first time Cathay Organisation has shown its support for the cause. Prior to the, the organisation was a. In 2015, Cathay also in its cinemas. Its application was rejected by the Media Development Authority of Singapore (now IMDA). While films and trailers shown in cinemas are subject to classification by IMDA, advertisements are largely self-regulated, Marketing understands. OOH players speak up Following the furor over the advertisement, Marketing reached out to several out-of-home players on their thoughts on the matter. According to a spokesperson from local out-of-home player Mediacorp OOH Media, the organisation stands guided by the ASAS advertising guidelines when vetting of ad materials, in particular the Singapore Code of Advertising Practice. “If there is a grey and debatable area, we will work closely with the advertisers and stakeholders, and put up for further consultation with ASAS towards a resolution. Usually we will try to arrange for meeting or consultation with all parties,” the Mediacorp OOH spokesperson said. Echoing the statement is Evlyn Yang, managing director at JCDecaux Singapore, as long as it does not contravene Advertising Codes of Practice and the building partners the JCDecaux Singapore work with are in agreement, the company would say yes to the ad. Meanwhile, Clear Channel and Moove Media declined to comment, while SPHMBO has yet to respond to Marketing‘s queries. According to the, all advertisements “shall not subvert the shared values in Singapore’s society”. These values include nation before community and society above self, family as the basic unit of society, community support and respect for the individual, Consensus, not conflict; and racial and religious harmony. Marketing has reached out to ASAS for clarification on its stance for this particular ad. You have reached a degraded version of ESPN.com because you're using an unsupported version of Internet Explorer. For a complete ESPN.com experience, please upgrade or use a Matt Wilansky, ESPN.com 151d Players vented, and vented some more, at Wimbledon on Tuesday LONDON -- There was something in the air Tuesday at the All England Club, and it had nothing to do with the pervasive rain that eventually wiped out all play on the outer courts. A handful of players vented about various controversial topics during their news conferences. Here is a breakdown: Scheduling Monday's play on Court 1 extended deep into the evening, no thanks to the 4-hour, 48-minute Gilles Muller-Rafael Nadal marathon. Novak Djokovic was scheduled to play his fourth-round match against Adrian Mannarino immediately afterward, but they were unable to because of the lack of daylight. Djokovic played his match Tuesday and won, but he'll have 24 hours less rest than the seven other men's quarterfinalists. Djokovic said: 'We spoke with the referee, supervisors, trying to understand the thought process that they are having. I just think it was a wrong decision not to play us last night, because we could have played. I think the last match on the Centre Court was done before 7 p.m. [local time]. Having in mind that Centre Court has the roof and lights, we could have played 'til 11. 'We went to the referee's office before 8. There was security reasons. That was the only excuse, that basically there were explanations that we were getting.' Mannarino said: 'Well, I think there were lot of issues, especially with the security and everything. I was not controlling anything, you know. We've been moved to the Centre Court basically, but we had to wait I think to the end of the match of Rafa. 'Yeah, it was a long day. Was not easy to handle everything because, I mean, when Muller won the second set, I was ready to go on court already. Then we've been waiting a lot.' Even Andre [Agassi] was fighting for Djokovic. No idea why they didn't move that match. There was plenty of time, and it would have given Djokovic equal rest.' -- ESPN tennis analyst Brad Gilbert Court conditions This has been an issue from the start of the fortnight. Hot, dry conditions created a slick surface. Players were falling left and right, most notably Bethanie Mattek-Sands, who was taken off the court on a stretcher. On Tuesday, Djokovic was not fond of the surface either. Djokovic said: 'I mean, I'm not the only one who has been complaining a little bit about this condition of the court. But at the end of the day, it is what it is. You have to accept it. You have to deal with it. It's the same for both players. 'The fact is that, you know, the court is not in a great condition. But, you know, as I said, you have to deal with it. I don't think much can be done and what can be done. As I said, that's not in my area of understanding and competence. 'The chair umpire in the end of the match asked me about the hole, because midway through the match I mentioned there is a hole. He wanted me to show him, so I showed him. His reaction wasn't that great.' Mannarino said: 'I mean, I was a little bit -- to me, it was quite strange in the beginning of the match, because I felt like I was running in a different way. I was watching out my step all the time when I had to slow down.' 'Hard to say just from watching, but to me, it looks like Centre Court is in better condition than it ever has been. But Djokovic is feeling any inconsistencies from the bottom of his shoes, so he'd know better.' -- Gilbert Fifth-set rule The Nadal-Muller match was just the latest example of lengthy overtime tennis. Wimbledon, like the Australian and French Opens, has no fifth-set tiebreaker in the final set. Instead, the competitors play and play and. Muller and Nadal went to 15-13 in the fifth Monday, and we all remember the John Isner-Nicolas Mahut battle that ended 70-68 six years ago here. But the ramifications aren't always fair to them or other players. Just ask Djokovic and Mannarino, who would have gotten on the court a day earlier had Wimbledon instituted a final-set tiebreaker. Djokovic said: 'I just don't see any reason why [there is not a fifth-set tiebreaker]. Because Isner and Mahut made a history with an 11-hour match once. Is that a reason why we're keeping it? 'Yeah, it is great drama. But that player has to go out tomorrow. It is for a spectator. But for a player to play a five- or six-hour match, then come back the next day or within two days and perform, it's not really what your body's looking for, to be honest.' 'Yes, but I'd like to see some kind of cutoff point, whether it's 9-all or 10-all. No higher than 12-all. But if they want a tiebreaker at 6-all, that's fine, too. But Djokovic is right in that it creates an unfairness to the winning player, as well as the matches that follow that are postponed.' -- Gilbert On-court coaching Coaches are allowed to talk to their players during WTA-sanctioned events. But Wimbledon, like the other three Slams, is not a WTA event, hence no coaching is allowed. However, Svetlana Kuznetsova wasn't so sure something nefarious wasn't going on in the stands with her quarterfinal opponent, Garbine Muguruza, and the Spaniard's coach. Earlier in the tournament, BBC commentator Kim Clijsters said she spotted some gestures between Victoria Azarenka and her coach, Michael Joyce. Kuznetsova said: 'Well, I could hear [the coaching from the stands] because it was pretty clear because we all speak Spanish here. She was talking to her all the time. But it's her physio. I mean, I know she acts like this all the time. I don't think it's appropriate, but OK, I was focused on my game.' Muguruza said: 'Honestly, they were just cheering for me. I like when my team is behind me. But nothing really tactical or specific.' 'I don't know what was said out there, but I would advocate for on-court coaching and eliminate any controversy at all.' -- Gilbert © 2017 ESPN Internet Ventures. And are applicable to you. All rights reserved. More From ESPN:||||. THE HATRED Official Trailer (2017) Horror Movie HD SUBSCRIBE for more Movie Trailers HERE: PLOT: Four young women travel to their college professor's new country home for a weekend getaway, only to discover that the house has a malevolent past. CAST: Sarah Davenport, Andrew Divoff, Darby Walker Check out our specific genre movie trailers PLAYLISTS: SUPERHERO/COMIC BOOK TRAILERS: ANIMATED TRAILERS: SEXY TRAILERS: HORROR TRAILERS: CELEBRITY INTERVIEWS: JoBlo Movie Trailers covers all the latest movie trailers, TV spots, featurettes as well as exclusive celebrity interviews. Check out our other channels: TV TRAILERS: MOVIE HOTTIES: VIDEOGAME TRAILERS: MOVIE CLIPS: JOBLO VIDEOS. Imdb.com The Hatred ( 2017) - IMDb 182 × 268 - 20k - jpg horrorpedia.com The Hatred – USA, 2017 – HORRORPEDIA 640 × 764 - 138k - jpg youtube.com THE HATRED ( 2017) Official Trailer (HD) SUPERNATURAL| Andrew. 1280 × 720 - 70k - jpg imdb.com The Hatred ( 2017) 666 × 1000 - 99k - jpg youtube.com THE HATRED Trailer ( 2017) Horror Movie - YouTube 1280 × 720 - 97k - jpg addictedtohorrormovies. Kehoe, Writer/Director of ' The Hatred', Discusses the. 1200 × 696 - 87k - jpg youtube.com The Hatred| Official Trailer ( 2017) Horror Movie - YouTube 480 × 360 - 24k - jpg horrornews.net The Hatred ( 2017)| HNN 507 × 764 - 80k - jpg youtube.com THE HATRED ( 2017) Official Trailer #2 (HD) SUPERNATURAL| Andrew. 1280 × 720 - 43k - jpg itgoi.com The Hatred ( 2017) Hindi Dubbed DVDRip HD Movie Download Archives. 1920 × 1080 - 112k - jpg rottentomatoes.com The Hatred ( 2017) - Rotten Tomatoes 300 × 300 - 21k youtube.com THE HATRED - Official Trailer ( 2017) New Thriller Movie (HD) - YouTube 1280 × 720 - 53k - jpg youtube.com THE HATRED ( 2017) Find it on Blu-ray and DVD 9/12! - YouTube 480 × 360 - 17k - jpg addictedtohorrormovies. Correction: ' The Hatred' Looks Pretty Damn Cool – Addicted to. 851 × 315 - 190k - png sealteam1138.com The Hatred ( 2017) Directed by Michael G. Kehoe| SealTeam1138 450 × 250 - 19k - jpg rahim-soft.org Hatred 2017 Full Movie Free Download 500 × 366 - 63k - jpg youtube.com THE HATRED - Official Trailer [HD] Upcoming Horror Movie ( 2017. 1280 × 720 - 56k - jpg horormagoria.sk Exclusive interview with the director of ' The Hatred' movie. 1916 × 672 - 357k - png traileraddict.com The Hatred Trailer ( 2017) 1280 × 533 - 22k - jpg metalrock.org Obsidium - Lesson Of Hatred ( 2017) 320 kbps - Technical Melodic Death 450 × 450 - 66k - jpg. Politically fueled cop hatred has taken another victim. Convicted felon Alexander Bonds, who had already assaulted an officer with brass knuckles, wrote on. Four young women travel to their college professor's new country home for a weekend getaway, only to discover that the house has a malevolent past. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |